pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
PvXwiki talk:You're Banned Dumbass
This policy was worded better before the DB crash, but I don't remember how I wrote it now, oh well. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 05:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT) :Do you want me to flower it up? - 05:37, 15 September 2008 (EDT) I can also make it patronizing and offensive? ::Gogo, I am uninspired today, always happens when I have to redo something. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 05:39, 15 September 2008 (EDT) Dumbass That word should not be here, nobody would like to be called such, especially the vandalisising banned user, be cool, please. --Sorrow 15:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT) :lol [[User:Ibreaktoilets|—'Tab']] [[User talk:Ibreaktoilets|'McPiplup']] 15:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT) :If you're banned from PvX you're a pretty big dumbass, tbh. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹ 15:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT) ::really, imagine yourself rage trolling this wiki after being perma'd, would you stop after being called a dumbass? :P --Sorrow 15:29, 22 September 2008 (EDT) ::In any way its rude imho, it is like pumping oil into fire. --Sorrow 15:30, 22 September 2008 (EDT) its liek true Dutchess of Roseakalukejohnson - talk 15:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT) :liek yea --Sorrow 15:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT) Not all policies have to have cool names like WP:DICK —SkaKid ''' 16:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT) :Tbh, none of them will be established with names like these, but that doesn't really matter, anyway. It doesn't take much to move a page. [[User:St. Michael|ــмıкε']][[User_talk:St. Michael|'нaшк']] 16:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT) ::Give it a formal name like PvX:You Are Banned otherwise it is kiddish imo. --Sorrow 16:44, 23 September 2008 (EDT) :::Honestly, if you can't take a simple word like "dumbass", you shouldn't be going to half the Talk pages here. Also, anyone whose really violating there ban gets to be called "dumbass", I guess. -- 'Guild of ' 07:14, 24 September 2008 (EDT) ::::That depends, is it okay to NPA a banned user? I don't really care either way, though. [[User:St. Michael|'ــмıкε']][[User_talk:St. Michael|'нaшк']] 07:19, 24 September 2008 (EDT) :::::According to policy, NPA isn't allowed on anyone, but depending on the user, Admins may turn their back. -- 'Guild of ' 07:22, 24 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::Taunting a banned user is kiddish imho, if you do it, you show feelings, show that you care and that is doing good for the ban-avoiding troll. Got it? --Sorrow 17:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT) This is stupid and unneeded imho. I personally vote against making policies just so you can throw them around and feel cool like PVX:Dick. "Hey you, PVX:You're Banned Dumbass!". Let's make PvX:Banned User Is Banned next. ' SazzyPooh 16:45, 23 Sep 2008 ' :I agree, well said.--Sorrow 16:46, 23 September 2008 (EDT) ::PvX:Critical Saz is Critical. [[User:Ibreaktoilets|—'Tab']] [[User talk:Ibreaktoilets|'McPiplup']] 16:47, 23 September 2008 (EDT) :::Good thing Misery made this policy with the purpose of allowing others to undue work done by perma-banned users so they stop trying to contribute rather than just so he can say "PVX:You're Banned Dumbass!". The name just so happens to be exactly what you'd say to these people. - 04:22, 24 September 2008 (EDT) ::::Ups, everyone is already doing that. ' SazzyPooh 07:24, 24 Sep 2008 ' :::::And that's how it becomes policy; proposals become common practices. - 07:35, 24 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::And whats the whole point, show them how much of a cool ass you are? Hm, doubt that they care O_O ! --Sorrow 17:41, 24 September 2008 (EDT) :::::::They are a dumbass if they get banned from PvX, and if they try to contribute more they're even more of a dumbass. I think the wording fits. 17:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT) *This was already an existing "Invisible" policy I suppose its good to have in writing, +1. ----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 17:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT) Meh, I'm retarted enough to post here. If banned people are really still retarted enough to break rules and go around their ban, odds are they won't care about this. They're already breaking rules and having a policy that's basically stating "Going around bans is dumb" seems rather stupid. Most anybody whose brain isn't the size of an ostrich's will know that. They won't go "Oh gee golly, I have a POLICY waved in my face! I should stop breaking the rules!" In closing, they're not going to stop breaking the policies because a policy is pointed at them. -- 'Guild of ' 17:50, 24 September 2008 (EDT) :What makes you think tht they are dumb? --Sorrow 08:02, 25 September 2008 (EDT) ::@Shadow, I think there are a few cases where most people are glad this isn't an actual policy. ツ cedave 11:59, 26 September 2008 (EDT) The point of this policy Seems to have been lost somewhere. The name is irrelevant, but it's basically to be used against permanently banned users who consistently come back to make edits on talk pages, basically because they like the infamy and get a kick out of vandalizing etc. The point isn't to say "Oi! Banned user! You can't edit any more!" the point is to empower regular users to revert their edits, their aren't enough admins to troll RC all the time and notice/revert every time Rask posts on a talk page, but I'm pretty sure most regular users know when he is posting. Igor used to submit entire builds while banned, it pretty much made the bans ineffective, but if someone reverted all his edits, it wouldn't be very fun to continue coming back and they will just get bored eventually and go away, it's like how vandals get bored eventually except applying it to all of someone's edits. People think this policy is "already in effect, just unwritten", I'm not aware that anyone other than me started doing it for non-vandalous edits, then I think Tab did it a few times too. Auron has already blanketly said it could be done to Rask's edits (pre-DB crash) and PvX:IGNORE does allow people to do it anyway, but I think few people actually have the balls to invoke that particular policy often. It's a policy proposed to empower normal users, admins will do this anyway at their own discretion and banned users don't need to be told that they shouldn't be editing the wiki. Whether or not regular users want it clear that they can do this is what is up for discussion. Change the name to "PvXwiki:You are banned good sir" if you want, the name is rather immaterial. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 13:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT) :I'd have to argue that it's probably more that users don't ''want to revert a banned user's edits, rather than that they don't have the balls to do it. I can think of a couple users who large numbers of us miss and would gladly shield and whose edits would be protected and probably claimed to be someone elses. ツ cedave 15:16, 26 September 2008 (EDT) ::If we make this official and people who know about this deliberately try to subvert it, we can ban them too. And unless I'm mistaken, rask, igor, rhys and the like aren't banned from the forums. They can post all they want there. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 17:48, 26 September 2008 (EDT) Igor used to submit entire builds while banned, it pretty much made the bans ineffective => i read somewhere that this kind of banned activity isn't to be reverted if the builds aren't complete crap/obvious joke D: basically because they like the infamy and get a kick out of vandalizing etc => Exactly, reverting it won't make any difference cause they're enjoying the vandalizing and the fact that you have to go and revert it again. but I think few people actually have the balls to invoke that particular policy often => does this mean you have huge iron balls? In reality, most users don't care that a banned user is posting on their page, unless the banned user is violating NPA and such. Then they will most likely revert it anyway. When this banned user is your friend, it's unlikely that you will say "shoo, you're banned don't talk to me here D: !" ' SazzyPooh 18:02, 26 Sep 2008 ' :There is a difference between submitting good builds and random shitty builds that you want opinions on. If their name disappears, then they lose their infamy, I admit it is probably a mistake to put "Rask comment removed", probably just "Banned user comment removed" is better. The chatting isn't vandalisation, the intention when they post is not to make people revert it, it's chatting, so you are basically killing their fun. My balls are massive, but they are actually made out of a mix of depleted uranium and cesium. I realise the direct relevance of this policy to you, because many banned users attempt to talk to you on your talk page, I don't expect you to remove their comments, but other users would be able to feel free to. I know you have Igor's msn and he can post on the forum all he wants, so talk to him in one of those two places. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 18:07, 26 September 2008 (EDT) ::There is a difference between submitting good builds and random shitty builds that you want opinions on => I'm guessing this is pointed at Igor as that was the one you were talking about earlier? The builds that I know Igor sent happen to be pretty good. Anyway, you seem to have misunderstood me. Most of the vandals don't care if their name remains on here or it's removed. You seem to misjudge their motives completely. They know their vandalism is going to get reverted, hence getting their name removed. So while knowing this, why do they still bother? Think about that for a while. ' SazzyPooh 06:38, 27 Sep 2008 ' :::The thing is, though, they won't bother if all/most of their edits are reverted. It's the same with vandals, after they've done it so much, and known that not one of their edits stuck, they'll eventually give up. [[User:St. Michael|'ــмıкε']][[User_talk:St. Michael|'нaшк']] 08:07, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::Vandals always get bored eventually, if everything gets reverted forever, it will happen quicker. Sure, they may start socking, but if they act as a different person and don't break any rules, who actually cares? For all intents and purposes it is then a different person. I'm not saying any current build edits should have been reverted, it's there in case of future incidents. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 09:23, 27 September 2008 (EDT) :::::If you go up to a sock to circumvent bans and say "You're breaking PvX:BANNED, refrain from doing so", odds are they'll respond with "Fuck you". They know that they're breaking policy, and one more in their face won't change anything. This is like telling a robber to stop robbing; he's not going to instantly stop just because you said so. -- Guild of ' 09:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT) :::::::No, this is more like taking stuff from a robbers house and putting it back where he stole it every time he does. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 10:04, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::::I thin that, removing just any of their comment would be a kiddy showoff, like Sazzy said another way to look cool waving a policy with teasing name in the air. There is all ready a policy giving permission to remove harmful or vandal comments, thats enough, if a comment doesnt do harm why waste time to get rid of it, showing that you care of whoever commented. Why? Just ignore it. Those users have allready paid a price of their name not being around. --Sorrow 10:24, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::::::Answer this, why should we let banned users post? - Misery Is Friendly 19px 10:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT) :::::::::::Why not? If there is nothing wrong with the edit. --Sorrow 12:01, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::::::::Why not? Because they are banned! Have you read the policy? "When This Should Not Be Used : If a banned user makes an actually useful contribution (such as correcting the attributes on a build) this does not need to be reverted." It's like you're promoting banned people's contributions Sorrow. "another way to look cool waving a policy with teasing name in the air." He's already stated that you can even change the name to ''You're banned good sir, stop mentioning the name, it's irrelevant. This policy directly tells you to remove banned user's edits if they're vandalous. If not, leave them there, but they're still banned! ~ 12:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::::::::Then why not unban them because it wouldn't make a difference either way? It would make banning useless and somewhat unfair if some of us could avoid bans without consequences. [[User:St. Michael|ــмıкε']][[User_talk:St. Michael|'нaшк']] 12:11, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::::::::::^, in that case I might as well get banned then go on a proxy forever. Means I could ignore NPA forever and that is tempting. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 12:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT) If the situation arises where proxies are used for nothing more than vandalism edits, we can block IPS of jsut about every proxy (there are lists and extensions etc.). We haven't done this becasue typically people are still at school/college/uni, and need a proxy to come on here (heck just about every other page i try at school is classed as profanity....) 'PheNaxKian Sysop' 12:33, 27 September 2008 (EDT) :Igor isn't banned because of vandalism, he hasn't ever vandalised that I am aware of. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 12:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::maybe vandalism wasn't the best word to use...basically if they're used for breaking policies. 'PheNaxKian Sysop' 12:35, 27 September 2008 (EDT) :::You mean like... avoiding a ban? - Misery Is Friendly 19px 12:37, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::yeh, i see your point XD. But we don't get very many issues of people miss using proxies, so to block all of them seems stupid... 'PheNaxKian Sysop' 12:41, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ::::::I never said block them, I said revert their edits. Actually proxies get temp banned now anyway. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 12:43, 27 September 2008 (EDT) Re-name to something like PvXwiki:Banned Editors - Because it is mostly about how to deal with obvious banned editors coming back to the wiki who shouldn't [[User:Frosty|'Frosty''']] po! 21:37, 16 February 2009 (EST) :We could put an addendum on one of the policy pages pointing out that banned users (either all or just the perma'd ones) will have their contributions deleted/removed from the wiki. Kind of pointless to remove the text though because you could poke History and check the contribution from random IP or Mr Sock. Also probably a big pain in the ass for admins to delete the revisions that they make. - 04:46, 17 February 2009 (EST) ::Reverting their edits seems to piss them off and they get bored and stop eventually. Basically all this does is reclass every edit they make as vandalous, all vandals get bored eventually. - (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (EST) :::I should point out that this is barely needed any more anyway as all the people who this would have affected... got bored. - (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2009 (EST) ::::SUCCESS! - 07:23, 17 February 2009 (EST)